Foil:Covering target w/off hand at on-guard

[countambrosius]

It is a yellow card for being in scoring distance and in an action. They called it on me once even though they never hit me.

[mrbiggs]

I've gotta second that the hand behind the back DOES cover target area.

Always? Really?

So if I do a proper lunge, with my back hand extended, I am covering target?

That doesn't make sense to me.

I think a more logical approach is to only call the back as covering target when the fencer who is covering is in such a position so that the other fencer could try to hit that target.

I should mention that this is how I call it; I'm not relaying this from an FOC or anything. I've never heard an expert opinion on the topic.

[KD5MDK]

In general it works to "does the position of their non-valid target make it impossible to hit the valid target?" For example, if their arm is against their lame, it is impossible to land valid on that portion of their lame. However, if it is away from the lame, it generally does not count as covering target. BFoO should have said "I've gotta second that the hand behind the back CAN cover target area."

[noodle]

Always? Really?

So if I do a proper lunge, with my back hand extended, I am covering target?

That doesn't make sense to me.

I think a more logical approach is to only call the back as covering target when the fencer who is covering is in such a position so that the other fencer could try to hit that target.

I should mention that this is how I call it; I'm not relaying this from an FOC or anything. I've never heard an expert opinion on the topic.

took that too literal.
he meant hand/arm behind and upon the back, actually hovering right over or actually touching the lame.

not extending your arm behind you via a lunge.

[Beloit Fencer of Old]

took that too literal.
he meant hand/arm behind and upon the back, actually hovering right over or actually touching the lame.

not extending your arm behind you via a lunge.

Yeah...today's a "rushy" kind of day...I was talking about people who PLASTER their arm against their back. Sorry. I will try to be more specific in the future.

[mrbiggs]

Yeah...today's a "rushy" kind of day...I was talking about people who PLASTER their arm against their back. Sorry. I will try to be more specific in the future.

Oh, then we're all in agreement.

[Inquartata]

In general it works to "does the position of their non-valid target make it impossible to hit the valid target?" For example, if their arm is against their lame, it is impossible to land valid on that portion of their lame. However, if it is away from the lame, it generally does not count as covering target. BFoO should have said "I've gotta second that the hand behind the back CAN cover target area."

Yet I see a lot of foil fencers whose back arms definitely would prevent an opponent from hitting them in that flank, when held in what everyone considers the normal position of that arm. No one ever calls this covering target...

[erik_blank]

Don't use the reel wire. The fencer may not touch the electrical equipment while fencing.

Agreed, and I should never have allowed it in the past, and I do not allow it now (when I catch it). Unfotuntately I have much less control at my club than before as for the last four years I have been in more of a "New Daddy" mode than ever before, and the Students at the club have been more and more interested in running the club with me as a peripherial advisor. This has lead to some habits (like the one above) creeping back into our new students lessons...